我抽空回復(fù)了第三和第四條評(píng)論，因?yàn)槲也幌胱屗麄円詾槲沂清e(cuò)的。以下為原文和百度翻譯譯文。 I just wrote a long reply to another comment, since he was more rational than you, I think the reply is suitable for you as well. Here is the original reply. ———— It’s a pity that the data pack has been deleted by PMC, but still, I should reply to your comment. Thank you for your long and rational comment, it makes sense for our conversation.? Before we start talking about whether Japanese’ dumped water is safe or not, we should discuss whether they really HAVE to do that. As far as I know, there are plenty of schemes offered to the Japanese government by experts in Japan and experts from other countries, but the government chose “the most economical way”. Here’s the question that Japan never answered:“If the water is safe, why dump it into the ocean?” Why not use it in agricultural and industrial production? That’s really a simple question. Second, I have watched and read the materials you provided (some of which briefly). I’m not a scientist, so I don’t think I’m qualified to judge or question those statements, I believe the problem is, in different areas, people from different political stands tell differently. How, should people actually living beside the polluted sea believe the explanation from some experts on the other side of the Earth, when they know the countries the experts come from are no friends of theirs, or that governments choose economic benefits rather than them? Experts and media in their own countries speak entirely differently with rigorous scientific evidence as well, while they speak for their people. Under such circumstances, I believe you would understand that people won‘t buy the Japanese government’s propaganda.? Speaking about the propaganda, I have to claim the purpose of this data pack I made. I believe you are one of the minority knowing this news if you are living in the West. Those media are keeping silent about this, and I think you know why. So, I was just trying my best to let more people know about what’s happening, only in that way will the truth have bigger chance to be revealed, whether it’s good or bad. So you should know that it’s not about “which damages the marine ecosystem the most, the nuclear sewage, the plastic, or the oil industry?” ALL OF THEM should be known. I have to say that the indifference on PMC really disappoints me, and I hope that when you land and your water are in danger or potential danger, you can keep your rational mind, thank you. And wish you health. 百度譯文： 我剛剛給另一條評(píng)論寫(xiě)了一個(gè)很長(zhǎng)的回復(fù)，因?yàn)樗饶愀硇?，我認(rèn)為這個(gè)回復(fù)也適合你。 這是最初的答復(fù)。 -------- 很遺憾，PMC已經(jīng)刪除了數(shù)據(jù)包，但我仍然應(yīng)該回復(fù)你的評(píng)論。謝謝你的長(zhǎng)篇大論，這對(duì)我們的談話(huà)很有意義。 在我們開(kāi)始討論日本人傾倒的水是否安全之前，我們應(yīng)該討論他們是否真的必須這樣做。據(jù)我所知，日本的專(zhuān)家和其他國(guó)家的專(zhuān)家向日本政府提供了很多方案，但政府選擇了“最經(jīng)濟(jì)的方式”。這是一個(gè)日本從未回答過(guò)的問(wèn)題：“如果水是安全的，為什么要把它傾倒到海里？”為什么不把它用于農(nóng)業(yè)和工業(yè)生產(chǎn)？這真是一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的問(wèn)題。 其次，我看了你提供的材料（其中一些材料很簡(jiǎn)短）。我不是科學(xué)家，所以我認(rèn)為我沒(méi)有資格評(píng)判或質(zhì)疑這些說(shuō)法，我認(rèn)為問(wèn)題是，在不同的領(lǐng)域，來(lái)自不同政治立場(chǎng)的人的說(shuō)法不同。當(dāng)人們知道專(zhuān)家們來(lái)自的國(guó)家不是他們的朋友，或者政府選擇經(jīng)濟(jì)利益而不是他們的時(shí)候，他們應(yīng)該如何相信地球另一端一些專(zhuān)家的解釋?zhuān)勘緡?guó)的專(zhuān)家和媒體在為本國(guó)人民說(shuō)話(huà)的同時(shí)，也用嚴(yán)格的科學(xué)證據(jù)發(fā)表了完全不同的看法。在這種情況下，我相信你會(huì)明白，人們不會(huì)相信日本政府的宣傳。 說(shuō)到宣傳，我不得不聲明我制作的這個(gè)數(shù)據(jù)包的目的。如果你生活在西方，我相信你是少數(shù)知道這個(gè)消息的人之一。那些媒體對(duì)此保持沉默，我想你知道為什么。所以，我只是盡力讓更多的人知道正在發(fā)生的事情，只有這樣，真相才會(huì)有更大的機(jī)會(huì)被揭露，無(wú)論是好是壞。所以你應(yīng)該知道，這不是關(guān)于“核污水、塑料和石油工業(yè)哪個(gè)對(duì)海洋生態(tài)系統(tǒng)的破壞最大？”所有這些都應(yīng)該知道。 我不得不說(shuō)，PMC的冷漠真的讓我失望，我希望當(dāng)你身邊的土地和水域處于危險(xiǎn)或潛在危險(xiǎn)中時(shí)，你能保持“理性”，謝謝。祝你身體健康。